W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-comments@w3.org > April 2013

Re: Futures (was: Request for JSON-LD API review)

From: Norbert Lindenberg <w3@norbertlindenberg.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 07:24:19 -0700
Cc: Norbert Lindenberg <w3@norbertlindenberg.com>, Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>, public-rdf-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <4E6C13EE-9E98-49CB-BF2B-46BD85FF5943@norbertlindenberg.com>
To: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
On Apr 16, 2013, at 16:55 , Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 8:30 AM, Markus Lanthaler
> <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net> wrote:
>> After a short discussion with Robin we decided to use method overloading to

>> We also considered Futures but decided that introducing a normative
>> dependency to the DOM spec is not acceptable at this stage.

> In this case, your API is a textbook example of Futures.  You have an
> async call which returns a single value, or an error.  You can't get
> much more perfect than that.

Maybe Futures should be in a separate spec? They don't seem to have any dependencies on DOM, and having them separate would reduce the bureaucratic hurdles for non-DOM specs to refer to them. Maybe eventually they could migrate into the ECMAScript standard library (currently known as ES chapter 15).

Received on Wednesday, 17 April 2013 14:24:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:59:32 UTC